Tuesday 11/28/06 Scores

[KeithK]

[quote Al DeFlorio]If only we could fire Clarence Thomas...[/quote]
Must....resist....urge....to start argument....about politics and the Supreme Court...

[Josh '99]

[quote KeithK][quote Al DeFlorio]If only we could fire Clarence Thomas...[/quote]
Must....resist....urge....to start argument....about politics and the Supreme Court...[/quote]Hey, I've got a good idea:  Don't.  ::smashfreak::

[amerks127]

We all forgot to wish Thomas a very happy anniversary.  It's been 2 years and 144 cases since Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments.  On Feb. 22, 2006, a death penalty case out of South Carolina saw Thomas actually ask a question.

So....HAPPY ANNIVERSARY CLARENCE.

[Rita]

[quote amerks127]We all forgot to wish Thomas a very happy anniversary.  It's been 2 years and 144 cases since Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments.  On Feb. 22, 2006, a death penalty case out of South Carolina saw Thomas actually ask a question.

So....HAPPY ANNIVERSARY CLARENCE.[/quote]

NPR story about the silent justice
And one from Yahoo.com/AP

[nyc94]

[quote amerks127]We all forgot to wish Thomas a very happy anniversary.  It's been 2 years and 144 cases since Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments.  On Feb. 22, 2006, a death penalty case out of South Carolina saw Thomas actually ask a question.

So....HAPPY ANNIVERSARY CLARENCE.[/quote]

If you think 30 minutes of oral arguments and questions from the justices have any real impact on their decisions I would say you're probably mistaken.

[amerks127]

NPR story about the silent justice
And one from Yahoo.com/AP

...way to reveal my sources.

[ugarte]

[quote nyc94][quote amerks127]We all forgot to wish Thomas a very happy anniversary.  It's been 2 years and 144 cases since Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments.  On Feb. 22, 2006, a death penalty case out of South Carolina saw Thomas actually ask a question.

So....HAPPY ANNIVERSARY CLARENCE.[/quote]

If you think 30 minutes of oral arguments and questions from the justices have any real impact on their decisions I would say you're probably mistaken.[/quote]
They may not affect the vote much but I do think that they help shape the opinions. Thomas has long been on the record as thinking they are borderline worthless, however.

[nyc94]

[quote ugarte][quote nyc94][quote amerks127]We all forgot to wish Thomas a very happy anniversary.  It's been 2 years and 144 cases since Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments.  On Feb. 22, 2006, a death penalty case out of South Carolina saw Thomas actually ask a question.

So....HAPPY ANNIVERSARY CLARENCE.[/quote]

If you think 30 minutes of oral arguments and questions from the justices have any real impact on their decisions I would say you're probably mistaken.[/quote]
They may not affect the vote much but I do think that they help shape the opinions. Thomas has long been on the record as thinking they are borderline worthless, however.[/quote]

I think they might shape the decisions in a few cases but more often I think they simply telegraph what the justices have already decided.  The back and forth between the justices can be informative for the public and even entertaining.  Maybe not worthless but then the fact that a justice can not be present at the oral argument and still vote on the case says volumes,

[Chris '03]

[quote nyc94][quote ugarte][quote nyc94][quote amerks127]We all forgot to wish Thomas a very happy anniversary.  It's been 2 years and 144 cases since Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments.  On Feb. 22, 2006, a death penalty case out of South Carolina saw Thomas actually ask a question.

So....HAPPY ANNIVERSARY CLARENCE.[/quote]

If you think 30 minutes of oral arguments and questions from the justices have any real impact on their decisions I would say you're probably mistaken.[/quote]
They may not affect the vote much but I do think that they help shape the opinions. Thomas has long been on the record as thinking they are borderline worthless, however.[/quote]

I think they might shape the decisions in a few cases but more often I think they simply telegraph what the justices have already decided.  The back and forth between the justices can be informative for the public and even entertaining.  Maybe not worthless but then the fact that a justice can not be present at the oral argument and still vote on the case says volumes,[/quote]

In response to these stories yesterday, conservative law prof Orin Kerr blogged about the nature of oral argument at the SCOTUS level being more about Justices using counsel as witnesses in order to persuade each other as opposed to counsel trying to persuade them. http://volokh.com/posts/1204008831.shtml